A Leaf Out of The Old Book

A word on drawing lessons from ancient architecture for the modern world.

The Leaning Tower of Pisa is one of the more curious architectural marvels of the world, seeming to almost teeter on the brink of falling over for centuries. The reason for the tower’s tilt is equally curious; the marshy land it was built on went unaccounted for, which caused a precarious tilt that was later remedied with engineering ingenuity. However, the by-then famous tilt was elected to be preserved, making it the tower’s primary appeal, even more so than the fact that Pisa was one of the earliest examples of Renaissance architecture, older even than its Florentine counterparts.

There are two aspects of this narrative the reader can choose to distil – firstly, the perfection of the exquisite Romanesque architecture-style of the building, and secondly, the titular imperfection of the tower. Both features together combat one of the elements that has plagued the modern architectural scene since the onset of the Industrial Age: standardization.

Standardization certainly has its benefits. The rapid pace of urban densification and the even more rapid development of technology has mandated a template which can continue expanding in the short term to embrace this growth. This is what has led to the modern cityscape that one is so familiar with – towering skyscrapers of steel and glass, uniform in their structure regardless of their locations. The age of Modernism has laid down stipulations that embody the principles of form over function, acting almost as guidelines for the future of architecture and building everywhere. The rise of globalization has only served to permeate these guidelines further, resulting in our current urban sprawl.

As miraculous as the onset of the modern era has been, the problems that architecture in our times faces has been at par with it. Sustainability is one of the primary concerns that long-term urban planners have realized they need to consider, as cities expand faster than regulations or innovations can keep up. Another issue, perhaps exacerbated in our times than previously, is that of climate-consciousness in building. Whether it is in the choice of building material or a building’s ability to withstand current climate patterns, climate considerations have risen to be an important aspect of architecture and urban planning. There is also a question that arises after one considers the Roman aqueducts, Greek pantheons or the ruins of the ancient ruins in Harappa; that of durability. While all the aforementioned structures were built with one of the foremost goals being handed down to future generations, the wearing down that happens with modern architecture can be detected in the span of a single generation, requiring constant maintenance.

While standardization may not be directly responsible for all these shortfalls, the principle that it serves can be considered so. In ancient times, cities were built around the tangibility of community, while in our times, communities and cities are built around the idea of efficiency. Whereas ancient architecture drew upon the nuances of the environment it existed in, modern architecture has strayed from this most basic of its roots to build uniform facades globally, regardless of the terrain. Without the technological means that we currently possess, city planners in olden times were required to inculcate ventilation and lighting within the very structures of their buildings. Building materials were sourced from whatever was naturally and conveniently available, making for appropriate adaptability to the indigenous climate patterns. These also made for more durable structures that were much easier to maintain, and simple in their ingenuity. An example would be the use of quicklime in Roman architecture, providing them with an ability to maintain themselves rather than be subject to erosion; a technique that was lost during the Middle Ages.

In many ways, ancient cities can be seen as natural extensions of the land they were built on, taking on its characteristics and organically developing from whatever practices were sustainable. In this way, their identity was not just a trademark of their culture; it was also a testament to their unique ability to exist within the context they had settled within. These cities were built around the values of the community that inhabited them, rather than the maximum possible efficiency that could be obtained from the populace.

Modern architecture, in its relentless quest to expand and standardize, ignores several of these core tenets that let these ancient architectural marvels thrive in their times, and then outlast the very people they were built by. As far as the shortcomings listed above are concerned – in particular, that of climate-consciousness – undoing the idea that a standard set of principles always yields the best results is paramount. In the current times we live in, the adaptability and sustainability practiced by ancient architects is of equal relevance. Instead of our cities being an interruption of their natural context, sourcing their design and construction from existing and indigenous ideals can ultimately lead to divergent and more creative solutions. This approach is best encapsulated in the words of renowned architect Thomas Rau, a staunch proponent of sustainability,

“Sustainable architecture is about more than just saving energy; it is about changing how we think about buildings.”